Cossack 316, your insults against Liza do not make you look nice at all.

Then, the name of Patriarch Mstyslav of blessed memory was not spelled as "Mystyslav" or "Mystaslav". The difference between immigrant Orthodox jurisdictions, which functioned outside of administrative bodies of mother Churches and UOC-KP has been already explained in Reply #39 of this thread.

Reply #77 by Cossack 316 provided falsified information as well. In reality, majority of parishioners of St. Andrew under the spiritual guidance of Fr. Bogdan Kalynyuk started a new community, Holy Trinity in Elk Grove Village. When details will become available they will be posted here.

This cannonical vs non cannonical argument by Bishop Antony's subdeacon is a load of malarkey.

Trying to make it personal? Most importantly, attempts to bring chauvinism in the Orthodox Church is a load of malarkey, inspired by the evil one. Secondly, you confuse me with someone else. I am not a subdeacon, never been one, never claimed to be one.

In Canada, we have a Ukrainian Orthodox Church which is affiliated with Constantinople, although oddly enough you won't find any of these parishes on the "find an Orthodox church" on two websites I visited (one is OCA , the other is referenced in the "Why Orthodoxy" thread). The whole canonical situation in Ukraine is sad. The best solution in the long run IMHO in Ukraine is for all four bodies to be affiliated under a single aegis (and I am including the UGCC), in full and complete communion with the rest of Orthodoxy, autocephalous or not. Ukraine as a modern nation is very young, and I don't see this happening any time soon. In the meantime, Protestant sects and American missionaries of various types have already had their impact on the ecclesiastical map. I wish they saw the big picture.

I am still orthodox, just as a Greek Orthodox is part of his GREEK church and a Bulgarian Orthodox is part of the BULGARIAN church. Whether or not you consider the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-KP cannonical or not is irrelevent. We worship the same god, hold the same holy mysteries, and difference being that the Bishops of Bound Brook left us and we went back to our original Ukrainian church. This cannonical vs non cannonical argument by Bishop Antony's subdeacon is a load of malarkey. Patriarch Mystaslav was considered non cannonical by EP and Moscow yet I dare one Ukrainian to claim he was illegal. The big difference is Filaret was elected and not Antony as Patriarch so Bound Brook decided to join the Greeks. I have no problem with the Greek church as it is the mother church. But her Patriarch is not Ukraine's partriarch. And the bishops have no legal right to parish property. If we were liek the Catholics and had a centralized Vaticanesq structure, then Bound Brook could build their own parishes and have a say. That doesnt exist. So Liza, dont shame me, shame on you for following poor, deceiptful shepards. I dont even live in New Jersey nor attend the Clifton parish. All I want is one Ukrainian church under Ukrainians. Whether you like Filaret or not, he is the sucessor to Mystyslav. What Bound Brook did is no different than the Govenor of Michigan, bc he didnt like Barack Obama, saying we suceed from the US and are joining Canada however we are still US citizens.

If you love Ukraine so much, why don't you catch the next flight leaving Chicago to Kiev? There's a 6:35 AM flight tomorrow morning.

South Bound Brook (Bound Brook is a different town; the Consistary resides in South Bound Brook) went under the Ecumenical Patriarch so that we wouldn't be under the opression of Moscow and would still be in communion with Worldwide Orthodoxy. Rather than pushing for a "Holy Ukrainian Church" you should be working with your brothers in sisters in Christ here in the US for jurisdictional unity instead of this KP nonsense. You talk about how the GREEKS have a GREEK Church and the BULGARIANS have a BULGARIAN Church, well what about AMERICANS having an AMERICAN Church? Or do you not want a part of that?

Canonicity IS relavent, as it is part of the truth of Orthodoxy.

Rather than draping yourself in the Ukrainian flag, why don't you actually read the canons and see for yourself the importance of canonicity?!

Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11

I am still orthodox, just as a Greek Orthodox is part of his GREEK church and a Bulgarian Orthodox is part of the BULGARIAN church. Whether or not you consider the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-KP cannonical or not is irrelevent. We worship the same god, hold the same holy mysteries, and difference being that the Bishops of Bound Brook left us and we went back to our original Ukrainian church. This cannonical vs non cannonical argument by Bishop Antony's subdeacon is a load of malarkey. Patriarch Mystaslav was considered non cannonical by EP and Moscow yet I dare one Ukrainian to claim he was illegal. The big difference is Filaret was elected and not Antony as Patriarch so Bound Brook decided to join the Greeks. I have no problem with the Greek church as it is the mother church. But her Patriarch is not Ukraine's partriarch. And the bishops have no legal right to parish property. If we were liek the Catholics and had a centralized Vaticanesq structure, then Bound Brook could build their own parishes and have a say. That doesnt exist. So Liza, dont shame me, shame on you for following poor, deceiptful shepards. I dont even live in New Jersey nor attend the Clifton parish. All I want is one Ukrainian church under Ukrainians. Whether you like Filaret or not, he is the sucessor to Mystyslav. What Bound Brook did is no different than the Govenor of Michigan, bc he didnt like Barack Obama, saying we suceed from the US and are joining Canada however we are still US citizens.

What about one holy, catholic, and apostolic Orthodox Church under Jesus Christ?

Imagine a hand reaching out and grabbing one of Our Lord Jesus Christ's fingers, violently bending the finger backwards so the bone snaps, then twisting the broken finger so that the Flesh is torn and the the finger is severed from His Body, loses its blood supply and dies.That is what a schism is.Even Satan would not dare to undertake such an assault on the Body of Christ. Yet people today seem to think nothing of it.Schismatics- that is, those who cause schisms- are behaving in ways which are worse than even the demons.

« Last Edit: August 22, 2009, 06:45:17 AM by ozgeorge »

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.—St. Isaac of Syria

How wonderful for all of you to have such a love affair with the Greeks, but let me address several different points in this thread:

1. The Macedonian Orthodox Church wasn't "created" by Marshal Tito. It had and still has popular support among ethnic Macedonians from both Macedonia and in the diaspora. Marshal Tito had no more ability to "create" a church without popular support than the Serbian/Greek alliance did to create a Church in Macedonia under their auspices. You cannot create a church without people. Anybody familiar with that situation knows there has always been significant consternation among the Macedonian people over their ecclesiastical alliances. Read the history of the Bulgarian parish in Steelton, PA if you want some idea of what went on in the period leading up to the (re)establishment of the Macedonian Orthodox Church:

A death resulted in this particular parish. It is an interesting read.

2. You guys are talking out of both sides of your mouths. On the one hand, one writer mentions that it took almost 150 years for the Bulgarian church to gain official recognition from the Patriarchate. Yet on the other hand, you guys are fighting against the Ukrainian people for wanting to establish their own national church. You have to start somewhere.

3. One writer in this thread mentioned that the Ukrainian churches joined the Patriarchate in order to be canonical yet to escape the yoke of the Greeks. Can someone please explain to me why a country that is as significant as Ukraine needs to be under anyone's yoke?

4. Good point about unity in AMERICA. That said, why does it have to be under the Patriarchate's terms?

5. Isn't this all supposed to be about Christianity? Does anybody really think God cares about church bureaucratic issues? If a church follows the canons of faith, what difference is it if the KP doesn't have the blessing of self-interested existing churches so long as it has the blessing of its people and of god? Same goes for the Macedonian Chruch and any other Church that has the support of its people.

In fact, one can argue that a church with the support of its people brings those people closer to God and makes them more connected to the church. Think about a black American and how connected he feels in the White oppressor's church? Better yet, think of the Africans attending services in American parishes. Are they not more comfortable in their own jurisdiction and under their own hierarchy? Why should the Ukranians and Macedonians not have their own? Because someone else says so? Because someone else doesn't want to lose territory? Because someone else needs a sourcrce of financial support? Sorry to be so crass, but that certainly is part of the issue here.

Bottom line is that if people want a national church, nobody has a right to deny them that.

How wonderful for all of you to have such a love affair with the Greeks, but let me address several different points in this thread:

1. The Macedonian Orthodox Church wasn't "created" by Marshal Tito. It had and still has popular support among ethnic Macedonians from both Macedonia and in the diaspora. Marshal Tito had no more ability to "create" a church without popular support than the Serbian/Greek alliance did to create a Church in Macedonia under their auspices. You cannot create a church without people. Anybody familiar with that situation knows there has always been significant consternation among the Macedonian people over their ecclesiastical alliances. Read the history of the Bulgarian parish in Steelton, PA if you want some idea of what went on in the period leading up to the (re)establishment of the Macedonian Orthodox Church:

A death resulted in this particular parish. It is an interesting read.

2. You guys are talking out of both sides of your mouths. On the one hand, one writer mentions that it took almost 150 years for the Bulgarian church to gain official recognition from the Patriarchate. Yet on the other hand, you guys are fighting against the Ukrainian people for wanting to establish their own national church. You have to start somewhere.

3. One writer in this thread mentioned that the Ukrainian churches joined the Patriarchate in order to be canonical yet to escape the yoke of the Greeks. Can someone please explain to me why a country that is as significant as Ukraine needs to be under anyone's yoke?

4. Good point about unity in AMERICA. That said, why does it have to be under the Patriarchate's terms?

5. Isn't this all supposed to be about Christianity? Does anybody really think God cares about church bureaucratic issues? If a church follows the canons of faith, what difference is it if the KP doesn't have the blessing of self-interested existing churches so long as it has the blessing of its people and of god?

small case "g" is right.

Quote

Same goes for the Macedonian Chruch and any other Church that has the support of its people.

In fact, one can argue that a church with the support of its people brings those people closer to God and makes them more connected to the church. Think about a black American and how connected he feels in the White oppressor's church? Better yet, think of the Africans attending services in American parishes. Are they not more comfortable in their own jurisdiction and under their own hierarchy? Why should the Ukranians and Macedonians not have their own? Because someone else says so? Because someone else doesn't want to lose territory? Because someone else needs a sourcrce of financial support? Sorry to be so crass, but that certainly is part of the issue here.

Bottom line is that if people want a national church, nobody has a right to deny them that.

No one says that they can't. People can set up any church (lower case "c') they want. They just can't call it the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

I'm not opposed to Ukraine having an autocephalous Church, nor for that matter the Macedonians. However there are those who want the Ukrainian or Macedonian Church and the One, Holy, CATHOLIC (Universal) and Apostolic be damned. In both cases there is an Apostlic Church One with the Catholic Church, the Archbishopric of Ohrid and the Metropolinate of Kiev. Now that's Holy. And Macedonian and Ukrainian.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Isn't this all supposed to be about Christianity? Does anybody really think God cares about church bureaucratic issues? If a church follows the canons of faith, what difference is it if the KP doesn't have the blessing of self-interested existing churches so long as it has the blessing of its people and of god? Same goes for the Macedonian Chruch and any other Church that has the support of its people.

This theory may work for Hinduism, Islam, Wicca etc, but certainly not for Christianity. You make the mistake of thinking that this is simply about "bureaucrats". It isn't. It's about the Unity of the Body of Christ, which is a basic dogma of Orthodox Christianity enshrined in the Symbol of Faith ("...One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church..."). What it boils down to is this: there is no valid reason ever for a schism, and among the least valid reasons for a schism is nationalism given what the Church is supposed to be.

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

What it boils down to is this: there is no valid reason ever for a schism, and among the least valid reasons for a schism is nationalism given what the Church is supposed to be.

Unity of the body of Christ? So long as there is unity in terms of beliefs and practices, is God really going to care what bishop you report to? If other countries can have a nationally-based church, you will never get away with denying a nationally-based church to people. The church can either adapt, or it can lose members of the flock.

Do you know how the Bulgarian Exarchate was established? Back in the mid-1800's, Macedonians were upset at the Patriarchate who took over the Ohrid Archbishopric's parishes in 1767. They were upset that they no longer had their own hierarchs, and upset at the Patriarchate's attempts at Hellenizing people. Here is a passage from another website which is a generally accurate account of history as I know it:

PAOK

BULGARIAN ACTION IN MACEDONIA .... 131

The Greek Church abuses its power over the Slavs in the Turkish Empire — Slav dissatisfaction — Inability of the Serbs to fight the Greek Church — The Bulgars, assisted by Russia, open their campaign — The Uniate Church (Greek Catholicism) among the Bulgars — The Russians, alarmed at the progress of the Uniate Church, increase their help to the Bulgars — The Greek Patriarch, alarmed at the growth of the Uniate Church, yields to the Bulgars — The Porte, taking the part of the Bulgars, inter- venes with the Greek Patriarch, and the Sultan declares the independence of the Bulgarian Church in Turkey — Significance of the creation of the Bulgarian Exarchate — Detriment caused to the Serbs in Turkey by the creation of the Bulgarian Exarchate — Attitude of the Greek Church towards the Macedonian Serbs — Macedonians begin to turn Uniate — Russia advises them to join the Bulgars in their struggle against the Greek Church — Macedonians help Bulgars, but only to free themselves from the Greek clergy — The Macedo-Roumanians do the same — The Bulgarian Exarchate and Macedonia — Turks side with Bulgars in Macedonia — New Bulgarian bishoprics in Macedonia — Forcible Bulgarization of the Macedonians — Creation of independent Bulgaria — Propaganda in Macedonia from Bulgaria — Many Macedonian Serbs refuse to join the Bulgars — Bulgarian terror among Serbian popu- lation of Macedonia-- Bulgarian comitadjis in Macedonia — Destruction of Serbian records and monuments in Macedonia.

This looks like it was put in the context of Macedonians being pro-Serbian, which I won't comment on, but the bottom line is that Macedonians wanted to get away from alien clergy and were prepared to become uniates to do so.

Put in a context you can better understand, I'm sure you have seen how people turn out at, say, a Greek Church when a bishop comes to visit. Often times, Ethiopians or other sects attend that church. How excited are THEY that they go out of their way to see someone else's bishop? Maybe under an "American" church, this is different, but I somehow doubt it. Bottom line is, even under a monarchy the people get what they want.

Nationalism, politics, culture and religion are all intertwined and always have been (how can they not be when the Kings were also the heads of their respective churches) -- deal with it.

No one says that they can't. People can set up any church (lower case "c') they want. They just can't call it the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

I'm not opposed to Ukraine having an autocephalous Church, nor for that matter the Macedonians. However there are those who want the Ukrainian or Macedonian Church and the One, Holy, CATHOLIC (Universal) and Apostolic be damned. In both cases there is an Apostlic Church One with the Catholic Church, the Archbishopric of Ohrid and the Metropolinate of Kiev. Now that's Holy. And Macedonian and Ukrainian.

Well, five years after being consecrated your "canonical Archbishopric of Ohrid" has about 200 followers, and don't for a minute think this is anything other than the people voting with their feet. With that history over there, nobody is going to be a follower of a church run by someone else's stooges (pardon the colorful language) ... especially when, until 1767, we had a church of our own. If you are truly interested in a canonical church, maybe a historical wrong should be corrected by recognising the Archbishopric of Ohrid and returning its rightful ecclesiastical territory in Northern Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria? Likewise, maybe Kiev be recognized and maybe its territories returned? Yeah, I thought so. This stuff about a canonical church only works for the overlords, doesn't it?

So the question is the same. Is this about faith or is this about controling people and making sure you empire doesn't shrink?

So...what are your thoughts here? I live in Michigan. I am proud to be a resident of Michigan. I am Orthodox. So...now I would like to form a Michigan Orthodox Church. I'll hire a retired priest, and I will form my own "Orthodox" church.

All Michiganders should be proud to come to my church. After all, it is Orthodox. I have icons, and an iconostasis, there's even a bell.

So, would this constitute an official church of the True Church? Would the sacraments be valid? Where is the Apostolic succession?

Believe me, I hope and pray that some day soon there will be a True Ukrainian Orthodox Church within Ukraine. After all, I lived to see Communism fall in Ukraine without a drop of blood being shed. Something we thought would never happen.So, I believe that when the time is right (according to God's will), Ukraine will have her own canonical Orthodox Church.

I've said it before, I prefer Ukrainian to any other church. However, I prefer to be a member of the Church, rather than a member of a church.

God first, nation second.

Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.—St. Isaac of Syria

So, I believe that when the time is right (according to God's will), Ukraine will have her own canonical Orthodox Church.

I've said it before, I prefer Ukrainian to any other church. However, I prefer to be a member of the Church, rather than a member of a church.

God first, nation second.

Is the "club" (canonical versus uncanonical), then, any different from the nation? Especially given the traditional symbiotic relationship between European churches and the monarchies in the countries they operated? Do you need to be "canonical" and be an accepted member of the "club" so long as you are following the tenets of the faith? Especially when considering all of the wrongs committed in the name of that "club"? I'm willing to bet God doesn't care so long as your intentions are pure.

As to your "Michigan" example, it is not applicable here as there is not a distinct people/identity from the state of Michigan. There is a distinction between Ukrainian and Russian, Macedonian, Serbian and Bulgarian, among others. And the problem with the Macedonian Orthodox Chruch is that Macedonians were only forced to become part of the Serbian Chruch only after their incorporation with the Serbian state in 1913. So, in a way Macedonians are trying to get away from the "Michigan" church they were forced into.

I post the following passage not to stir up passions, or for political reasons, but for everybody to see that there are two sides to every story. One person's "schism", is another person's not wanting to be subject to overlords they don't particularly want or trust. I can only speak as to Macedonia, but I'm sure there was similar disputes between the Ukrainians and the Russians ..... but maybe they didn't rise to this level of violence.

Bishop Germanos KaravangelisThe Devil's Disciple

The leaders of the Greek Orthodox Church were the most crazed supporters of the Greek state's plan to eliminate the Bulgarian element from Macedonia. This allegiance to a program of human genocide is typified by the actions of the Metropolitan Bishop Germanos Karavangelis.

Information on Karavangelis's psychotic behaviour is available directly from his very own autobiography "Pinelopa Delta", published in 1959 by the Salonica Institute for Studies. In that work we note the following (and many more) admissions and comments by Karavangelis

He was the first and most fervent champion of the emergence of the andarts' (Greek cut-throats, murderers etc) movement in Macedonia.

For seven years (1900-1907), as Metropolitan Bishop of Kostur, he maintained the slogan "let no Bulgarian remain alive".Together with Vardas, a Greek army officer, he inspired and helped organise the massacres at Zeleniche (Lerin) and Zagorichane (Kostur). Massacres which shocked the international community by the level of depravity and sadism which occurred.

Karavangelis regularly used assassins to eliminate people he had pre-selected. These killers were paid 5 pounds by Karavangelis, on delivery of the person's severed head. So proud was Karavangelis of his actions, that he had one of these "trophies" photographed and displayed in his office. (This was confirmed by a British author whose name escapes me at this time).

As the level of andart activity increased, he writes in his autobiography

"I kept regular contact with them through the consulate in Bitola and the Metropolitan bishops. I personally met them and instructed them to kill all priests and Bulgarian teachers."It is surprising that the Greek Church has not sought to canonise Karavangelis for his unswerving duty to God and country. But then perhaps they already have.

=============================

I know there is probably another narrative and/or this narrative might have been exaggerated, but let's for a moment accept that there are people who believe the preceeding narrative.

-Do they allow the Patriarchate to be their overlord? No way.

-Do they allow the Serbians to be their overlords? Different language, different people. Probably not enough historical affinity to make it stick. Most importantly, Macedonians were never part of the Serbian church until 1913! The Serbian church was, for practical purposes, imposed upon them at that time. I don't want to overstate this, as some people did have an affinity for the Serbian church as a lesser of evils, but THE OVERWHELMINING MAJORITY OF PEOPLE SUPPORTED RESTORATION OF THE OHRID ARCHBISHOPRHIC.

-Do they allow the Exarchate to be their overlord? Similar language, but also a lot of bad blood between Macedonians from what the Bulgarians did during their WWII occupation that hasn't been forgotten.

None of these are acceptable options. So you are telling me God doesn't accept the Macedonian Church because it isn't part of this "club"?

And please remember, with regard to the Macedonian Orthodox Church, the church declared autonomy from the Serbian Church in 1957, JUST 44 YEARS AFTER BEING FORCED INTO THE SERBIAN CHURCH IN 1913 FOLLOWING THE BALKAN WARS.

In other words, Macedonians have only a 44-year history of being under the Serbian Orthodox Church (not by their own choosing) yet the "club" uses this as a basis to deny membership?

Do you now see what the problem is with denying people what they want. Monarchies and even Communism cannot operate without consensus. One person or a small group cannot rule by fiat unless they have the people on their side.

Do you now see what the problem is with denying people what they want.

My friend, you are preaching to the choir. My family has lived through the horrors of Communism, exile to Siberia, starvation during Holodomyr (Genocide against the Ukrainian people), getting bayoneted to death because a 5 year old mentioned her grandmother talks with God (during Communism)...so, don't ask me "if" I understand. I do.

However, having said all that....and knowing the horrors that one people can bestow on another, I would still choose to do things the "right" way.

Believe me I am all for the independence of all nations from their oppressors. Every people deserves to be free. Every nation deserves the right to pray in their own language and have heirarchs of their own.

However, there are processes that need to be followed. You can't just jump up and start a church. It simply doesn't work that way.

I can't speak to your situation, I can only speak to what I know is going on in Ukraine.

I wish you well. I wish Ukraine well. I await the day that Ukraine has a legitimate, canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church!

Lord, have mercy on all nations and all people's who in truth, only wish to serve You!

Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.—St. Isaac of Syria

Is the "club" (canonical versus uncanonical), then, any different from the nation?

Yes, very different. What ever happened to Apostolic Succession? Or is that no longer a requirement?

I hear what you are saying, but don't agree. We have relics of St. Clement in our church. The current priests and bishops and hierarchs were consecrated by others who had this very connection to the apostoles. The tenets of the church continue to be followed. This is enough for me.

The Macedonian situation is that of a church that existed from abou 1018-1767, and was disbanded for political reasons. The territory of the church at one time covered large portions of Macedonia, Albania, Serbia, Bulgaria and Northern Greece. The Greek Patriarchate took over most of the Macedonian territory in 1767 but was unsuccessful at hellenizing most of the slavic-speaking population.

In the 1870's the Bulgarian Exarchate was allowed to establish parishes in Macedonia. In 1913, most of Northern Macedonia was ceded to the Serbian Orthodox Church. Bottom line is that the Macedonians have NO history of being under the Serbians (1913-1957=44 years), the Bulgarians (1873-1913=40 years) or Constantinople (1767-1873=106 years) so it should be no surprise that they aren't very keen on accepting any of them as their overlords.

In fact, the Macedonian Orthodox Church has existed longer (1957-2009=52 years) than any connection we had with either the Bulgarian Exarchate (40 Years) or the Serbian Patriarchate (44 years). Feel free to correct me if my logic is wrong.

However, I pray that the Lord should grant Macedonia a full fledged canonical Orthodox Church.

It's funny, where I live are 2 Macedonian and 2 Serbian churches all within a range of 20 miles, or so.One church is labeled as Macedonia/Bulgarian - St. Clement's.

It is "canonical".....and very beautiful!

Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.—St. Isaac of Syria

Actually, my comment about beauty was just a personal comment on appearances. In truth, all Orthodox churches are beautiful.

I meant to draw attention to the fact that the church was Bulgarian-Macedonian. I just found it interesting.

Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.—St. Isaac of Syria

Actually, my comment about beauty was just a personal comment on appearances. In truth, all Orthodox churches are beautiful.

I meant to draw attention to the fact that the church was Bulgarian-Macedonian. I just found it interesting.

Much like the Macedonian people .... split. The older immigrants mostly affiliated with Bulgarian parishes and they are known as Macedono-Bulgarian. Some of those split off and joined the OCA's Bulgarian Diocese. Still other communites or people angry at their own congregation attended Serbian parishes. Macedonians began parishes affiliating with the MOC in 1958 here in the states. A few random churches here and there are part of ROCOR. And this is not even counting the Macedonians in northwestern Greece which is another issue altogether. The MOC and these jurisdictions aren't in communication with each other.

So...what are your thoughts here? I live in Michigan. I am proud to be a resident of Michigan. I am Orthodox. So...now I would like to form a Michigan Orthodox Church. I'll hire a retired priest, and I will form my own "Orthodox" church.

All Michiganders should be proud to come to my church. After all, it is Orthodox. I have icons, and an iconostasis, there's even a bell.

So, would this constitute an official church of the True Church? Would the sacraments be valid? Where is the Apostolic succession?

Believe me, I hope and pray that some day soon there will be a True Ukrainian Orthodox Church within Ukraine. After all, I lived to see Communism fall in Ukraine without a drop of blood being shed. Something we thought would never happen.So, I believe that when the time is right (according to God's will), Ukraine will have her own canonical Orthodox Church.

I've said it before, I prefer Ukrainian to any other church. However, I prefer to be a member of the Church, rather than a member of a church.

God first, nation second.

BRAVO Liza! BRAVO! I couldn't have said it better.

Orthodoc

Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.

So...what are your thoughts here? I live in Michigan. I am proud to be a resident of Michigan. I am Orthodox. So...now I would like to form a Michigan Orthodox Church. I'll hire a retired priest, and I will form my own "Orthodox" church.

All Michiganders should be proud to come to my church. After all, it is Orthodox. I have icons, and an iconostasis, there's even a bell.

So, would this constitute an official church of the True Church? Would the sacraments be valid? Where is the Apostolic succession?

Believe me, I hope and pray that some day soon there will be a True Ukrainian Orthodox Church within Ukraine. After all, I lived to see Communism fall in Ukraine without a drop of blood being shed. Something we thought would never happen.So, I believe that when the time is right (according to God's will), Ukraine will have her own canonical Orthodox Church.

I've said it before, I prefer Ukrainian to any other church. However, I prefer to be a member of the Church, rather than a member of a church.

God first, nation second.

BRAVO Liza! BRAVO! I couldn't have said it better.

Orthodoc

And as I would say, both of you would make great bureaucrats. The fact is that you can put your blinders on regarding wheter someone should conduct their activities within the "club" or not, but there are two simple facts you people should understand.

First, there is no way you will ever get into the "club" unless the issue is forced. These are quasi-political entities and don't give up territory and treasure very easily.

Second, members outside the "club" get along just fine without you. There is a very vibrant life in these parishes that continues with or without your blessings ... preferably with, but we'll manage just fine without:

And this is not even counting the Macedonians in northwestern Greece which is another issue altogether.

Umm, dirtyharry, I don't think the people of Epirus of northwestern Greece would appreciate being called Macedonians. The Greek province of Macedonia is in the northeast.

Carry on.

I'm talking about the region west of Edessa (Voden). Macedonians are still well-represented to the west of there, but they have been largely cleansed out to the east, and (contrary to what my compatriots would say) were never much of a factor in and around Thessoloniki. The use of the Macedonian language is still common, but not so much in public and no so popular with the young.

Unity of the body of Christ? So long as there is unity in terms of beliefs and practices, is God really going to care what bishop you report to? [/quote]No. But then, not sharing the Chalice is not "unity in practice" is it? If you break Communion with the Church, where is the unity?"For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread." 1 Corinthians 10:17Those who break Communion do not partake of that One Bread; they partake of their own bread.

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

It has come to my attention that the Patriarch of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-KP will be visiting the parish of St. Andrew in Bloomingdale to bless their new mosaic. It is interesting reading these threads on the division between the UOC- under EP and the UOC-KP believers. Those that stress cannon versus non cannon, only the Lord knows what is right or wrong. Personally I hope that all Ukrainian churches unite into one Ukrainian Patriarchy. Unfortunetly with the politics involved, I dont see that happening. I do question this though...before 1995 apparently all the Ukrainian orthodox Churches under Bound Brook were Uncannonical until they sought the ompiphorion of the EP. So my question is this....if I was married in a Ukrainian Orthodox Church before 1995, is my marriage null and void bc the priest and church who preformed the ceremony was uncannonical? Same goes for baptism. My grandparents and great granparents who are dead and buried had their funerals conducted before 1995 by non cannonical priests bc UOCUSA was non cannonical. Patriarch Mystylsav of Blessed Memory was uncannonical and formed an uncannonical church when he became Patriarch of Ukraine in the early 90's Does this mean that Met. Constantine and Archbishop Antony were uncannonical until 1995 and every service they performed was null and void? Rather than hate and throw nasty accusations at one another, shouldnt we in the interest of our church and culture strive to unify?

I do know this much, this nastiness and hate needs to stop. Respect peoples differences and live and let live as long as no damage is done.

So my question is this....if I was married in a Ukrainian Orthodox Church before 1995, is my marriage null and void bc the priest and church who preformed the ceremony was uncannonical? Same goes for baptism. My grandparents and great granparents who are dead and buried had their funerals conducted before 1995 by non cannonical priests bc UOCUSA was non cannonical. Patriarch Mystylsav of Blessed Memory was uncannonical and formed an uncannonical church when he became Patriarch of Ukraine in the early 90's Does this mean that Met. Constantine and Archbishop Antony were uncannonical until 1995 and every service they performed was null and void? Rather than hate and throw nasty accusations at one another, shouldnt we in the interest of our church and culture strive to unify?

As a member of one of those churches that used to be "uncanonical", it is through economia that the sacraments of baptism, marriage, etc., are considered valid.

I do know this much, this nastiness and hate needs to stop. Respect peoples differences and live and let live as long as no damage is done.

While violence is not the answer, neither is "live and let live." As Orthodox Christians we profess faith in One Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church. That is where canonicity comes in. You are either part of the Church or you are not. You are either part of the body of Christ or you are not.

Furthermore, the Church in Illinois should not be concerning itself with church affairs in Ukraine, but trying to work with other parishes in the US towards jurisdictional unity.

The Ecumenical Patriarch and the Moscow Patriarch recently met in Kiev with the Met. Philaret. Hopefully this means a resolution is in the not too distant future.

Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11

In the Eastern Orthodox and Greek-Catholic Churches and in the teaching of the Church Fathers which undergirds the theology of those Churches, economy or oeconomy (Greek: οικονόμια, economia ) has several meanings.[1] The basic meaning of the word is "handling" or "disposition" or "management" of a thing, usually assuming or implying good or prudent handling (as opposed to poor handling) of the matter at hand.

As such, the word "economy", and the concept attaching to it, are utilized especially with regard to two types of "handling": (a) divine economy, that is, God's "handling" or "management" of the fallen state of the world and of mankind — the arrangements he made in order to bring about man's salvation after the Fall; and (b) what might be termed pastoral economy (or) ecclesiastical economy, that is, the Church's "handling" or "management" of various pastoral and disciplinary questions, problems, and issues that have arisen through the centuries of Church history.

Economia basically means "grace for the situation." For example, if during Lent a Diabetic cannot follow the rigors of the fast, his/her Spiritual Father will advise them to follow a modified fast, or to give up television or something else instead of food.

In the case of the parishes under the UOCUSA and their sacraments being considered "valid," the Ecumencial Patriarch basically recognized that although the parishes had been outside the communion of Worldwide Orthodoxy, they had maintained the faith of Orthodoxy, followed the practices of Orthodoxy, which then allowed them to come back into communion without everyone having to get baptised, chrismated, and married.

A similar situation occured when ROCOR came back into communion with the Moscow Patrairch.

Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11

What a blessed event this past weekend. The church had 400 for Divine Litugy on Sunday and had in addition to his holiness Patriarch Filaret, patriarch of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, his emminence archbishop Alexander of Detroit (UOC KP) an archbishop of the Belarusian Autocephaus Orthodox Church (sorry I dodnt remember his name) 13 priests and 2 visiting priest from St. Joeseph Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church Chicago, IL. Pictures and video will be available shortly. In the meantime please check out the link below...

Just a correction to the previous post. There were 13 priests. There were no priests from S.t. Joseph Parish but subdeacons who did a wonderful job and support the Kyivan Patriarchal movement. We need our people in every jurisdiction Unfortunately the Ukrainian Greek-Cathoics are unable to concelebrate the Divine Liturgy due to "Canons". One day priests from St. Joseph the Betrothed Parish may well concelebrate at a patriarchal visitation in the future when there is a unified Ukrainian-Kyivan Independent Church.

Rome is not our father - Moscow is not our mother

Lets pray for Unity. Lets realize the dream of Patriarch Joseph (Slipyj) and Patriarch Mstyslav (Skrypnyk). It all starts from within ones own home

Just a correction to the previous post. There were 13 priests. There were no priests from S.t. Joseph Parish but subdeacons who did a wonderful job and support the Kyivan Patriarchal movement. We need our people in every jurisdiction Unfortunately the Ukrainian Greek-Cathoics are unable to concelebrate the Divine Liturgy due to "Canons". One day priests from St. Joseph the Betrothed Parish may well concelebrate at a patriarchal visitation in the future when there is a unified Ukrainian-Kyivan Independent Church.

Rome is not our father - Moscow is not our mother

Lets pray for Unity. Lets realize the dream of Patriarch Joseph (Slipyj) and Patriarch Mstyslav (Skrypnyk). It all starts from within ones own home

Do you want a Ukrainian church, or do you want an Orthodox church. Fortunately, you can have both.

In respect of the relationship between Bulgaria and Macedonia - the former was one of the first - if not the first - country to recognised its independence in the 1990s but the issue Bulgaria has with the MOC is that the latter has supported the schismatic Alternative Synod and claims Bulgarian history/personages as their own.

Macedonia can call itself whatever it wants and can have its own Church - no problem with that. However, the Ohrid Archbishopric was never 'Macedonian' and Tsar Samuel's empire was never 'Macedonian'.

A really good historian is the late Sir Steven Runciman who was the foremost expert in Byzantine/Orthodox history.

Do you want a Ukrainian church, or do you want an Orthodox church. Fortunately, you can have both.

I want BOTH!

I want an Orthodox Church...that identifies with Ukrainians and Ukraine. Where Ukrainians can worship in their own language and have their own priests and bishops!

What we have in Ukraine at the moment is not "it".

I can wait....for the REAL thing!

Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.—St. Isaac of Syria

What a blessed event this past weekend. The church had 400 for Divine Litugy on Sunday and had in addition to his holiness Patriarch Filaret, patriarch of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, his emminence archbishop Alexander of Detroit (UOC KP) an archbishop of the Belarusian Autocephaus Orthodox Church (sorry I dodnt remember his name) 13 priests and 2 visiting priest from St. Joeseph Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church Chicago, IL. Pictures and video will be available shortly. In the meantime please check out the link below...

How lovely. Schism and heresy have sat down to break bread, to the accolades of the secular press.

« Last Edit: October 27, 2009, 10:11:03 AM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Liza, tell me how the Kyivan Patriarchate is not what you are looking for? Because they havent recieved cannonical recognition yet? It will happen. Meanwhile the UOC in the US is under the omophoron of the EP. Is the Romanian Church? Is the Serbian? The Russian? No they have their own patriarachats and patriarch. Yes his holiness Patriarch Filaret was in the Russian church til the eraly 90s. Guess what so where ALL Ukrainian clergy as there was no Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Ukraine til 1990. So is the logic it better to be under the Greeks until the greek recognize the UOC-KP cannonically then UOCUSa would leave the EP and Join the UOCKP? The UOCUSA bishops are listed as bishops of ancient Greek areas ie Ierepolis. I have no problem with the EP as it is the mother church but I want what you want and we have it...just not the recognition , yet.... When his Holiness Mystyslav was alive and in charge of the UOCUSA we didnt have cannonical recognition either. Does that mean you would have prefered to been under the Greeks then as well?

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth